The Apostles were sent by Jesus Christ to preach the Gospel of
salvation to all nations. In a very short period of time, and in
a miraculous way, they managed to spread Christianity to the entire
ecumene, despite the persecutions and the adverse circumstances.

According to trustworthy historical sources, and by the tradition
of the Church, Apostle Andrew, the First-Called of the Apostles,
preached the Gospel in Asia Minor, the areas around the Black Sea,
Thrace, and Achaia; where he was martyred. The fact that Apostle
Andrew preached in these areas is the reason that the Churches
of Trabzon, Constantinople, and Patras honour him as their founder
and patron saint. The Church of Constantinople has established
the Feast Day in the memory of this Saint (30 November), as the
Feast Day of the Throne, a day that is gloriously celebrated. This
celebration, that had ceased during the first years of the Turkish
yoke, was re-established during the time of Patriarch Seraphim
II, who was Metropolitan of Phillipoupolis before he became Ecumenical
Patriarch (1760) and continues since then without interruption.
It was the year 356 AD, when the Holy Relics of the Apostle Andrew
were brought to Constantinople and were placed in the Church of
the Holy Apostles. The Apostle was very much loved by the people
of the City. Witnesses to this are the numerous churches that were
named in his memory.

The apostolicity of
the Throne of Constantinople is also shown from the proven fact
that the Apostle and Evangelist John preached
in Asia Minor. It was he who addressed his book of the Apocalypse
to “the seven churches in Asia”, namely the Churches
of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamon, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and
Laodecia, which, since the 4th century belong stably to the jurisdiction
of the Church of Constantinople. It was in 861 AD, during the Council
in Constantinople, when Patriarch Ignatius called upon the double
apostolicity of the Ecumenical Throne, when the Papal Delegation
was promoting the apostolicity of the throne of Rome. As it is
recorded in the canonical collection of Cardinal Deusdedit (11th
cent.), from the Latin translation, St. Ignatius then said, “ And
I hold the throne of Apostle John, and of the First-Called Apostle
Andrew.”

However, the apostolic recognition of the Church of Constantinople
is supported much more from the apostolic function, which she performed
in a very remarkable way. It was the establishment of the first,
and unique in the entire world Christian city of Byzantium, as
well as the spreading of the Gospel, in an apostolic ethos and
manner, to multitudes of people, whom she brought to the One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church. She became, thus, Equal-to-the-Apostles,
following the example of the first Christian Emperor, the founder
of the new capital of the empire, namely Constantinople, which
has been her see since then..

Before Constantine the Great became Emperor, the small town of
Byzantium, this ancient colony of the Megareans, was a diocese
under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Heracleia in Thrace.
The Christians that lived there were experiencing the hard living
conditions that were being created with the persecution of all
Christians by the Roman Emperors. The first bishop that was placed
in that town by Apostle Andrew himself, was Apostle Stachys.
Twenty-four more bishops followed Apostle Stachys, with St. Mitrophanis
being the last one, until the first important period of the diocese
of Byzantium reached its closing. The second glorious period
started when Constantine the Great became the new Emperor, which
lasted for more than a thousand years, and became known as the
period of the Byzantine Empire. During this period the Church
of Constantinople became first an Archdiocese, then a Patriarchate,
then the Ecumenical Throne, and the Great Church. All these developments
were not just a result of world historic changes. They were an
essential factor of the grandiose and splendour of the Greco-Roman
Christian Empire.

2. The Period of flourishment and radiance (324-1453)

It is a well-known fact that in the very beginning Christianity
spread throughout the areas of the vast Roman Empire, where the
Hellenistic civilization was prominent and the common language
was Greek. This had been the heritage rooted in the Empire that
was first established by Alexander the Great, who had brought Hellenism
to the East, and was followed by his successors. The Christian
ecumene of Constantine the Great was built on the Greek ecumene
of Alexander the Great. Christianity had a Greek voice from the
beginning, and besides the great Hellenist Apostle Paul who introduced
Christianity to the Greek ecumene; there were other Apostles that
worked for the spreading of Christianity in Greek and/or Greek-speaking
areas. Among those was Apostle Andrew, the founder of the Church
of Byzantium, which would become a resplendent ecclesiastical centre
that would predominate for centuries over the spiritual life of
the entire world. The Greek world of the coasts of the Mediterranean
and the Black Sea had been the ground of the missionary work for
many of the Apostles. Because of this, the organization of the
first Christian Church was based in the large Greek cities, where
Christian communities were flourishing.

By spreading Christianity to the Hellenistic world, Apostle Paul
fulfilled the first part of his missionary commitment for the spreading
of Christianity to both Greeks and barbarians (Rom. 1:14). The
second part of his missionary commitment was exemplary fulfilled
by the Church of Constantinople. The Church of Constantinople possessed
all the favourable conditions for this task because of the transfer
of the capital from Ancient Rome, which was closely linked to paganism
and idolatry and seemed to be powerless and unfit to lead the Christian
world, to Constantinople, the New Rome, which had been built and
designed to take upon her the lead of the Christian world.

By the end of the 20th century, historians have undoubtedly accepted
the ascertainment that in the western part of the Roman Empire,
nowadays Europe, Christianity was spread in sporadic communities.
A dense network of Christian communities had been established in
the East, especially in the provinces of Asia Minor and Pontus,
which together with Thrace will constitute the territory of the
ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople by
the fourth century. The seven Churches of the Apocalypse, which
we have mentioned above, already existed by the time of the reign
of Emperor Domitian (81-96). It is due to this that within the
framework of the institution of the pentarchy of the patriarchates,
which by the 5th century constitutes the organizational form of
the Church in autocephalous local Churches, only one ecclesiastical
centre exists in the West, namely Rome, whereas the other four
patriarchates, namely of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and
Jerusalem, are located in the East.

The political and cultural
splendour in which Constantinople found herself in by the 4th
century, as the new capital of a now Christian
Empire, created notable changes in the organization of the Church.
The formation of the high-ranked ecclesiastical position of Constantinople
as the spiritual centre of the Christian ecumene took place at
a very rapid pace. There is no mention of the Throne of Constantinople
during the 1st Ecumenical Synod in 325 AD, although the transfer
of the capital had already been decided in 324. The official inauguration
of Constantinople as the new capital took place in 330, and it
is understandable that it would take some time for Constantinople
to acquire the relative prestige and to assert its authority, as
it was competing against Ancient Rome with the abiding historical
grandiose and glory of the eternal city. Like efforts of the same
period to install the emperor in other cities, such as Nicomedia,
and Milan, had failed. The famous expert on Canon Law, Theodore
Valsamon, in an effort to explain the silencing of Constantinople
by the 1st Ecumenical Synod, talks about the prestige and authority
of the Ecumenical Throne; about the transfer of the capital according
to a divine plan; its transformation from a spiritual unfruitfulness
(Ancient Rome), to good and beneficial fruitlessness (New Rome);
about the already set institution of the pentarchy of the Patriarchates,
which Rome always tried to overthrow since she would not accept
local autocephalous Churches, but only the monarchy of the Pope
and his jurisdiction over the entire body of the Church. Valsamon
writes: “The great Throne of Constantinople, this famous
object and name was under the Peirinthian Bishop, (Peirinthos is
western Herakleia) for Constantinople was not yet called a big
city, but a town and it was called Byzantium. But when the royal
sceptres were moved from the Old Rome to Constantinople, in a divine
and mystical providence, as from a spiritual unfruitfulness to
a spiritual wealth and fruitfulness, the hierarch of the throne
of that time St. Mitrophanes was elevated from a Bishop to an Archbishop.
This was the reason why the first Holy Ecumenical Synod in the
sixth and seventh canons mentioned only the four Patriarchs, beginning
with the one of Rome, followed by Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem,
without referring at all to the Patriarch of Constantinople” (G.A.
Rhalles & M. Potles 4, 542).

During the approximate
fifty-year period between the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Synod (325-381
AD), Constantinople evolves into a leading
Church. This can be attested by the leading roles of the Bishops
of Constantinople during the heresies concerning the Holy Trinity.
As a result of their importance, two Archbishops of Constantinople,
St. Gregory the Theologian, and after his resignation, St. Nectarios
of Constantinople presided over the 2nd Ecumenical Synod, after
the death of Meletion of Antioch. This Synod regulated the entrenched
in practice, primary position of the Church of Constantinople,
designating in its 3rd canon that “the Bishop of Constantinople,
however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop
of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome”. In the very
successful formulation of Maximus of Sardis in his work on the
Ecumenical Patriarchate “the 3rd canon was not a product
of arbitrariness, but came as a result of the evolution of the
50 years and is the ripe fruit of the historic consciousness of
the churches of the East and of the new conditions of the Empire” (page
109).

This ecclesiastical
elevation of Constantinople over the Patriarchates of the East,
and becoming second after Rome, contributed in the
actualisation of the practice of jurisdiction over the nearby administrations
of Pontus, Thrace and Asia, although the Synod did not touch formally
upon the status of their independence. Their final subordination
to the jurisdiction of Constantinople took place in the 4th Ecumenical
Synod in Chalcedon, which by her 28th canon affirmed the entrenched
practice of jurisdiction on their administration by Constantinople.
It also extended the jurisdiction of Constantinople over the “barbaric
nations,” meaning the Christian communities that were in
the Diaspora, outside the borders of the Empire and outside the
jurisdiction of the autocephalous Churches. The 4th Ecumenical
Synod completed the ecclesiastical elevation of Constantinople
by supplementing the regulations of the 2nd Ecumenical Synod. The
Bishop of Constantinople was no longer second after the Bishop
of Rome, as it was decreed by the 2nd Ecumenical Synod, but “equal
privileges (isa presbeia) were given to the most holy throne of
New Rome”, as to the Throne of Ancient Rome (28th canon).
Canons 9 and 17 give to Constantinople the right of “eccliton”,
namely the right to judge clergy of the other Patriarchates, in
case of an appeal. The expression of the primary position of the
Throne of Constantinople can be seen in these two cases of the
practice of purviews outside its jurisdictional boundaries, namely
the jurisdiction of the Diaspora, and the supreme judicial authority
in the institution of appeals. The canons do not allow any other
Throne to practice the right of the jurisdiction outside their
boundaries.

This privileged position
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, that is solely dependant on written
canonical stipulations, became in
the history of the Orthodox Church besides its legal foundation
a natural attribute. The Orthodox civilization cannot be understood
if one removes Constantinople, which became the great Centre of
Orthodoxy during its entire dynamic historical course. During this
period of flourishment and power, the Ecumenical Patriarchate officiated
in the enunciation and formation of dogmas; in the convocation
of the Ecumenical Synods; in the development of Monasticism; in
the infusion of the Christian spirit into the totality of life
in the empire, always in harmonious cooperation with political
authorities, so that Byzantium would indeed become a unique paradigm
of authentic experience of the Gospel of Christ in world history.
The Church of Constantinople exercised also, from the time of St.
John Chrysostom, very successful missionary work which culminated
during the 9th and 10th century, through the missionary expedition
to the Slavic world. It imparted to the Slavic peoples the repository
of the perdurable historic experience of the Orthodox spirit and
through it, instilled ontologically the very depths of the Slavic
civilization. One cannot realize and understand the Slavic civilization
without referring to its spiritual progenitors. Through this missionary
work the Church of Constantinople the Mother Church of all peoples
who came through her to the Christian faith. And as the famous
expert on Canon Law Nicodemus Milas says; “…it is therefore
a natural result that the churches of these peoples turn to the
Mother Church for the settlement of their internal ecclesiastical
life, asking for guidance for it, as well as for all ecclesiastical
matters that are unknown and unclear for them” (Ecclesiastical
Law, pages 156-157).

This spiritual motherhood
of the Church of Constantinople encompasses all Christians who
are in the Church and are nurtured by the teachings
of the Fathers and the Synods. According to the very apposite remark
of Patriarch Isaiah, in his letter to the Armenians, who were wishing
to return to the Orthodox Church; “We speak to you and to
all who consider themselves Christians as a mother…And the
teachings of the sacred Fathers and the divinely inspired law of
the Holy Synods streamed from us, as if from a fountain, to the
members of the Church” (Miklosich- Muller 2, 259).

3. The Great Church continues her work

Soon after the loss
of the external glory and power due to coincidental occurrences,
the Ecumenical Patriarchate assumed, as a loving and
caring mother, the responsibility of the protection and care of
the enslaved Orthodox peoples. It was with great prudence and wisdom
that she was moving along in the new circumstances of those times,
preserving the Orthodox faith and the self-consciousness of the
Orthodox peoples. The appearance of a vast number of Neomartyrs
during this period is a sign of pride and joy for the Orthodox
Church. This connects the Church with the ancient Church of the
first centuries, which is known for its persecutions and the martyrdoms.
One has to bear in mind that islamization was not the only danger
that the Orthodox faithful had to face. Proselytization, by which
the heterodox were trying to convert the Orthodox who were in a
poor and weak condition, was equally grave. The heterodox entered
the sheepfold not through the gate, as the good shepherd, but from
another way, as thieves and bandits, to kill and destroy (Jn. 10,
1-8). There is much historical evidence on the strong stand of
the Ecumenical Patriarchate against the foreign propaganda, which
unfortunately resorted to illicit means for the success of its
goals. For example, it organized a campaign of slander and defamation
against the Ecumenical Patriarchate, using historical and supposedly
scientific studies, trying to arouse the national sensitivity of
the Orthodox peoples. This was done in such a manner as to weaken
the influence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the Orthodox
peoples, and for them to thus become vulnerable prey in the hands
of the foreign “missionaries”.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate
did not safeguard only the Orthodox faith, but the national conscience
of the peoples of the Balkans
as well. Orthodoxy does not suppress healthy nationalism, but it
integrates it in a harmonious manner within the plethora of other
attributes and features that comprise the human side of the human-divine
body of the Church. Under the protection and guidance of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, the Orthodox peoples cultivated their national languages,
developed each their own ecclesiastical literature, and listened
to the message of the Gospel “each in their native tongues” (Acts
2,8), just like on the day of Pentecost. The phenomenon of ruthless
and rigid Latinization of theology and worship, which was dominant
up to the Second Vatican Council and destroyed the national elements
of the Roman-Catholic peoples, never took place in Orthodoxy. This
can be excellently proven in the case of the Slavic peoples; it
was the Church of Constantinople that created their written language.
In the Orthodox Church the peoples of the Balkans kept their national
and racial characteristics unscathed, so that in the 19th century
they were able to assert their national distinctness and independence.
It was only when nationalism asserted a dominant position, when
it was ranked first among the features and attributes that comprise
the Church, thus putting in danger the spiritual supranational
character of the Church and unity of the Church, which is based
on spiritual features and attributes, that the Ecumenical Patriarchate
condemned this tendency of “racial nationalism” as
a dangerous innovation.

4. New Period: Unity of the Orthodox, dialogue in love and truth
with the Heterodox

The creation of independent national countries in the Balkans
had as a direct result the creation of autocephalous local Churches.
Although the Ecumenical Patriarchate was watching its enormous
jurisdiction slowly shrink, it accorded, via Canon law, the autocephalous
status to the Churches of the new countries of the Balkans. The
Ecumenical Patriarchate reacted only in cases of defiance of the
canonical order and the over-exaggeration of the criteria of racial
nationalism. This multi-fracture into national Churches was a new
phenomenon in the life of the Orthodox Church. The granting of
the autocephalous status to the Church of Russia that took place
many centuries ago (1589) did not create any tensions in the relations
of the Orthodox. This was due to the compliance of the daughter
to the Mother Church, and due to the lack of the over-exaggeration
of the principle of nationalism, which had constituted the basis
of the existence of the new countries. In addition to that, the
national claims among these new countries contributed to the distance
and coldness of the relations among the autocephalous Churches,
especially during the long periods of warfare.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate from the beginning of the 20th century,
having watched with pain this lack of unity among the Orthodox
peoples, put a lot of effort in strengthening the inter-Orthodox
relations, as well as forging and warming bonds of unity among
them. This effort, with the grace of Almighty God, has proven extremely
successful. There are many examples that prove that the times of
estrangement remain only as an old memory; to mention but a few:
the numerous inter-Orthodox meetings; the unhampered and fruitful
preparations for the convocation of the Holy and Great Synod; the
solid unity of the Orthodox peoples in the treatment of new historical
challenges that happen in our own times- an example of this is
the historical meeting of the leaders of the autocephalous Orthodox
Churches in the sacred Centre of Orthodoxy, in March 1992. The
historical initiatives of the Church of Constantinople and the
eager response of the other autocephalous Churches have created
favourable conditions for the continuation of this course of the
Orthodox Church.

The accomplishment of the inter-Orthodox unity has facilitated
the conciliation with the heterodox, which aims at the unity of
all. Indeed, the united Orthodox Church provides the witness of
the Orthodox faith that is in dialogue with the heterodox in a
spirit of love and truth. Never before have there been so many
theological dialogues as there are today. The result of all these
dialogues, and generally the participation of the Orthodox in the
so-called Ecumenical Movement, as long as this participation is
based on the principles of the Orthodox faith and life, is trusted
to the grace of God, Who is realized in love, and Who loves in
truth.

5. The Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

The Church of Constantinople, the First Throne among the autocephalous
Orthodox Churches, having the right and responsibility of the commencement
and the coordination of actions of inter-Orthodox importance, according
to historical and theological reasons, does not cease being a local
Church, whose jurisdiction is confined to a certain geographical
area. This is something that, according to the canons, applies
to all the Churches and to Rome, except for the privilege of the
jurisdiction outside their boundaries of the Churches of the Diaspora,
a privilege that was solely given to Constantinople, and the institution
of appeal. As it has already been said, the administrations of
Pontus, Thrace, and Asia Minor were the first areas of the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Throne. Since the 8th century, the
areas that were subject to eastern Illyricum, from the Adriatic
Sea to the Nestos River, and from the Danube River and the Mountains
of Rodope to the island of Crete, were also added to the jurisdiction
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. These areas, which had come under
the political jurisdiction of the eastern Roman Empire since the
4th century, and had come under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction
of Constantinople since 421 through a decree by Emperor Theodosius
II, were an exarchy, or a vicariate of Thessalonica up to 733,
under the Church of Rome. The Slavic peoples, who had converted
to Christianity through the missionary care of the Church of Constantinople,
came also under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Throne. The
Church of Russia used to be for five consecutive centuries a metropolis
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, until the 15th century. In the
geographical area of the Balkans, three archdioceses were created,
of Tyrnovo, of Achris, and of Pekion. However, during the Turkish
yoke, they returned under the immediate jurisdiction of Constantinople.
The Metropolises of Hungro-vlachia and Moldovlachia that were organized
in the 14th century were also under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical
Throne.

This wide jurisdiction of Constantinople started slowly to decrease
through the granting of the autocephalous status to local Churches:
to the Church of Russia in 1589, to the Church of Greece in 1850,
to the Church of Serbia in 1879, to the Church of Romania in 1885,
to the Church of Albania in 1937, and to the Church of Bulgaria
in 1945.

Much more serious was
the downsizing of the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
that took place due to the flight of the
Orthodox populations who had to leave their patrimony homes in
Pontus, Thrace and Asia Minor, areas that were for centuries the
historical geographical ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate. This flight began after the Asia Minor war in 1922,
and has not ceased. Therefore, from these territories, what is
left today in Turkey is the Archdiocese of Constantinople, and
the Metropolis of Chalcedon, the Metropolis of Derkon, the Metropolis
of Prince’s Islands, and the Metropolis of Imvros and Tenedos.

From the populations that moved to Europe, America and Australia,
new Archdioceses and Metropolises have been established, with much
energy and dynamism, among other more advanced peoples. It is from
this coexistence that the Eastern Orthodox Church awaits many good
things.

Outside the borders
of the Turkish State, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has still under
its jurisdiction the Metropolises of the Dodecanese,
the semi-autonomous Church of Crete, the monastic community of
the Holy Mountain, namely Mount Athos, and other Patriarchal Foundations
and Centres over the entire Ecumene. Furthermore, under the jurisdiction
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate are also the Metropolises of the “New
Lands”, whose administration was given tutelarly in 1928
to the Church of Greece.